October 18, 2010

There's an American tradition of speaking pseudonymously, most prominently exemplified by The Federalist Papers. Why not listen to what is being said and apply your judgment? Have we lost the ability to judge without seeing who's saying it? If our critical thinking is that poor, what's the point of letting us vote?

They're fighting back. The empire is striking back. To win this election, they are plowing tens of millions of dollars into front groups. They are running misleading negative ads all across the country.

Why not just argue on the substantive merits of the issues? He's inviting us to think in stark good versus evil style — straight out of fantasy movies. You need to know who is saying something, not what is being said, because you should side with the good guys — his government — not think in any detail about the issues.

I hope you notice that Obama is not talking about the identity of campaign donors. He's talking about independent speakers who don't want to reveal the names of all their donors.

243 comments:

They're fighting back. The empire is striking back. To win this election, they are plowing tens of millions of dollars into front groups. They are running misleading negative ads all across the country.

And he is only concerned about television ads. He isn't concerned about people who donate anonymously to to groups who disseminate information via CAP blogs or Think Progress.

If you don't know who the speaker is, how are you going to attack them ad hominem? How are you going to bus protesters to their house? How are you going to harass their spouse and family members? How are you going to threaten their employer?

Democracy is threatened. The center can't hold. Chaos is unleashed on the body politic. The left can't attack the person when they're unable to defend against the idea

Maybe Obama thinks that his harshest critics may have a contract with GM. That carefully constructed and fascist entitlement to business monopolies in exchange for supporting the tyrant is at the bottom of this tyrant/Kenyan King's complaint here. He demands to know who is the traitor. He would really be surprised if it was Biden, the successor tyrant. But that would also be standard fascism governance in action.

"Why not listen to what is being said and apply your judgment? Have we lost the ability to judge without seeing who's saying it?"

At least they're consistent.

Pastafarian: "But CO2 is a trace gas, that absorbs only a tiny percentage of radiation in narrow frequency bands; and any increase in temperature has started at the surface and moved to the atmosphere later, rather than vice versa."

Let's see... the Empire wanted a one galaxy government that eliminated the fractious REPUBLIC. Seems like BHO has his poles reversed.

Apparently, the language of the bill for Obamacare (smuggled out by many dead Bothans), shows a single weakness. There's an individual mandate about 2 meters wide that a single lawsuit/x-wing might be able to take advantage of.

In an episode of “Mythbusters” on the Discovery Channel to be shown on Dec. 8, President Obama will help determine whether the Greek scientist Archimedes really set fire to an invading Roman fleet using only mirrors and the reflected rays of the sun…

He wants to say that we should ignore these ads because they are bullshit political rhetoric, full of factual inaccuracies and hyperbole. He gets lazy and says, we should ignore them because they are anonymous, and paid for by mysterious opponents. FAIL.

All the lawyers around here surely should remember famous Texas defense attny "Race-horse" Harry Haynes,who famously once said: "When the facts are on your side, you pound the facts; when the law is on your side pound the law--and when neither is on your side, pound the table." Obama, needless to say, is now loudly pounding the table.

I'm just saying what could go wrong. The chamber, unlike labor unions, don't have to disclose anything. But I say so what. Foreign entities or governments always have America's best interest at heart don't they?

What could go wrong with 100s of millions of dollars from foreign entities to influence our elections anyway?

A lot of people were asking that EXACT question when the Obama campaign INTENTIONALLY removed the safeguards on their website to prevent overseas and untraceable prepaid credit cards from donating to his campaign.

That's not an entirely speculative accusation like Obama is making. There were donors listing residences in the Gaza Strip, donors whose names were random letters stomped on a keyboard, hundreds of thousands of dollars donated in the name of people who didn't have 2 dimes to rub together.

But yet there's wasn't a peep from garage about Obama's corruption. Not a peep from hd. Not a peep from 1jpb. Not a peep from Ritmo. Not a peep from any of the usual Leftist suspects.

But let Obama make a completely unsubstantiated charge with ZERO evidence to back it up, and all of a sudden the Lefty Stormtroopers who were dutifully silent when Obama corruptly took foreign money leap to the attack.

Quite frankly, you can STFU you partisan hacks. You had your chance to make a stand against foreign money influencing American national elections. You made it clear that you would look the other way.

Quite frankly, given your conduct re: foreign money in the previous election, I don't really care if Republican campaigns are ENTIRELY run by foreign money.

You made the rules. Now you want to whine because you're losing the game. You should have thought about that when you were giggling up your sleeve at all the foreign money being used to beat up on Republicans 2 years ago.

Go away with your childish temper tantrums. No one cares what you have to say.

Let's see... the Empire wanted a one galaxy government that eliminated the fractious REPUBLIC

You know, I can't tell you how disappointed I was that this got almost completely lost in the prequels. I was primed for an epic tragedy in the classical sense, wherein Skywalker, convinced at the logic and overall rightness of order over freedom, falls into evil despite taking, at every step of the path, what appeared to him to be the moral and ethical stance. That all his good intentions end up creating the very hell he sought to avoid, he realizes only when it is too late, and never is able to even fully admit it to himself (until he completely betrays the emperor in what we might call a "moment of clarity.")

I'm just saying what could go wrong. The chamber, unlike labor unions, don't have to disclose anything. But I say so what. Foreign entities or governments always have America's best interest at heart don't they?

Would these unions which operate purely in the public interest include the ones which are mob-controlled? How about the ones which take dues from illegal aliens? Isn't that "foreign money" too? How much of their contributions come from their overseas counterparts? What about all the dues money from members who are compelled under corrupt Democratic laws to join the union in order to have a job?

Using unions as an example of "transparent" money is just flat out stupid given the historic criminality and the physical violence their members have engaged in under orders from the top ("get in their face," "punch back twice as hard") during this electoral cycle alone.

This is the hate and evilness of the republicans. They are actually mounting a challenge to Obama, and not rolling over and taking whatever he offers. The affrontery!They're fighting back. The empire is striking back. To win this election, they are plowing tens of millions of dollars into front groups. They are running misleading negative ads all across the country.

A star wars reference? Well, I do recognize that the Empire was the bad guys, but do the rebels really think that the Empire is evil because it's fighting against the rebellion? At the very least arent't they entitled to fight back against the group that just destroyed the Death Star? If THAT was what made the Empire evil then were they really that evil? But more imprtantly, if Obama and the dems control all avenues of govt, then aren't they the Empire? The tea partiers are the rag tag band of rebels.And oh my god, they are pouring money into front groups! Like Move On. Org! Oh, wait, that front group is ok to pour money into because it's different than the evil republican front groups. And they are running negative ads! The horror! Never before in election history have such odious ads been run. I'm surprised he didn't bring up the "fact" that republicans are getting all this FOREIGN donations from evil FOREIGNERS. But of course, since it turned out that democrats received twice the amount of foreign donations than republicans I guess that talking point has to go under the bus. Would that be the type of misleading that Obama is saying goes on in the campaign? Because that is kind of misleading.But oh, it was said by Obama, so it's not misleading at all.

garage mahal said: "I'm just saying what could go wrong. The chamber, unlike labor unions, don't have to disclose anything. But I say so what. Foreign entities or governments always have America's best interest at heart don't they?"

Honestly, garbage, you lefties on this blog suck so bad at the rhetoric game as to almost be boring now. You fail to cite any credible evidence for your accusations and are blissfully unaware of your side's tangible hypocrisy.

First, Garage does an el toro ole on all the questions asked of him since his first spurious statement. Then, laughing brings up Soros, who recently said that the specific reason he's not throwing money into this cycle is because the GOP is about to spank dat ass. I'm paraphrasing, of course.

If I know the source I know to what degree I'm being bullshitted. And it's nice to know that "Americans for Prosperity" is really two Texas oil billionaires, and Concerned Taxpayers for California is really the Teachers Union.

Looks like I broke my linky. Also looks like edutcher beat me to the obvious punch

Obvious to a moron like you, who isn't capable of throwing a punch:

1. The PACS are funded entirely by contributions from U.S. employees of subsidiaries of foreign companies2. All of the contributions are made public under Federal Elections Commission rules3. PACs affiliated with the subsidiaries of foreign corporations are governed by the same rules that American firms' PACs or other PACs would face.

Good v Evil is all most people, particularly young people, understand. They weren't taught the classics and certainly not taught Shakespeare, w/ his complex characters. In high school we would study the play being presented @ the Shakespeare Theatre on the Ct. shore and then go see the play. I was home for a funeral recently and read an article in the Hartford Courant that the theatre is abandoned and being vandalized, quite a metaphor.

Of course, one of the reasons Shakespeare is not taught is because feminazi English teachers find him sexist.

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country's scared.”

Facts & Science & Argument: all, naturally, the exclusive possession of his side. And of course, the only way to tell who's speaking on the basis of Facts & Science & Argument-- is to look at who's speaking. (And who's funding them.) Ad hominem. You can't actually expect us stupid, scared, bigoted, irrational masses to "think clearly"-- use anything like data or science or reasoning to judge for ourselves! Those tools are the exclusive province of our betters, like Obama or Nancy Pelosi.

Who needs to actually read a piece of legislation in order to analyze it, weigh the consequences, and thereby decide whether it would be a good idea to vote for it? Facts and Science & Argument support Obamacare, that's all there is to it. If you disagree, you're a racist.

That's why, for example, all you need to know about AGW is that the "right" people-- the "peer-reviewed" climate scientists, the global saviors at the UN, Al Gore the oracle, renowned Hollywood actors, etc.-- all agree on what is the the Science and the Truth. Who cares that e.g. those "peer-reviewed" "scientists" have hidden, distorted, and destroyed the data they've based their conclusions on, and can't replicate their results? That's none of your business, peasant. Leave it to the priests of esoteric knowledge to work out-- and accept from them the Facts and Science and Argument.

In a nutshell, it's argument by authority. Revelation. The only way to judge the true, the good, the reasonable is to look at who's speaking. If it's a hillbilly, Republican, teabagger, conservative bimbo, Faux News, bitter clinger to guns or religion... or the Chamber of Commerce (cough)... etc.-- you know ipso facto you're being brain-washed by the forces of darkness.

As John Kerry puts it:

“This is a tough year,” he said at the fundraiser at the home of Ralph de la Torre, the CEO of Caritas Cristi, a Massachusetts-based health care system. “Facts, science, truth seem to be significantly absent from what we call our political dialogue. It’s hardly a dialogue. It’s a shouting match, sloganeering.”

So you SAY, Garage, BUT how do we KNOW that’s all? No, Moron it’s up to you to PROVE that the money is legal…see I’m using the Axelrod/Garage logic, here…neither you nor Axelrod did anything more than suggest illegality, so now the CoC has to prove the negative. Let’s just turn that around on you…PROVE that that foreign money to Democrats is NOT illegal.

You, Axelrod, Jesse Ventura and Loose Change all use the same Modus operandi, “Just asking questions.” Ask away, we’ll just ask the same ones of you.

But TV speakers don't have to disclose anything if they are invited on to offer their opinion. If Tom Friedman is invited on MSNBC to talk about infrastructure spending, do we know where he gets all of his money?

garbage stepped out there: "Obvious to a moron like you, who isn't capable of throwing a punch:

1. The PACS are funded entirely by contributions from U.S. employees of subsidiaries of foreign companies2. All of the contributions are made public under Federal Elections Commission rules3. PACs affiliated with the subsidiaries of foreign corporations are governed by the same rules that American firms' PACs or other PACs would face."

Oh sweet, garage is engaging. Must move fast before he ducks the thread.

So based on your response above, how do you reconcile that with your blathering about the COC in that other thread you got schooled on? Or are you just torpedoing your own silly-ass arguments?

Or did you even have a point to begin with?

(And since I'm a moron, did you ever educate me on what it is that backs U.S. Treasuries? Still waiting on that one)

Are you claiming Carlos Slim didn't invest several $100 MM to bail out the NYT? or are you claiming he is from Australia?

Neither. Murdoch long ago made foreign billionaire ownership of US media acceptable. The guy who Mike Royko referred to only as "The Alien" came from Australia to the US, buying up newspapers (he now owns the WSJ, for example) as well as Fox. (He had to naturalize because of US broadcast ownership laws.)

Some years ago, Murdoch persuaded a Saudi billionaire to invest a ton of money in Newscorp. Then last year, a Mexican billionaire invested a ton of money in the New York Times.

Ann, all year, you have erroneously denied that the Citizens United decision would lead to more direct corporate spending in elections on the specious grounds that the money would not go directly to candidate coffers but, instead, be spent independently.

As predicted, you have been shown to be wrong. All kinds of independent expenditure outfits are active, with the Big Money spending going 8:1 Republicans to Democrats.

You refuse to own up to your mistakes. And, now, Obama addresses the issues head on and you still refuse to address it substantively, preferring to attack, attack, attack, instead.

Obama IS speaking to a key issue in this election: Is American democracy for sale? You are being opportunistic because the spending is on YOUR side - the GOP (or anyone opposing the liberals you despise).

They tried to fix this legislatively, as the Court called for, and every single Republican Senator filibustered requirements that the identity of these donors be disclosed.

You are a fluff commentator, unable to face hard questions, such as those posed by our President. You just want to opposed liberals and that's that.

BTW I don't remember the media or the Dems getting all worked up when one of their candidates is a billionaire [Corzine] and he decides to spend $100 million or so to buy a senate seat or the governor's job.

Some "foreign" corporation or government channels hundreds of millions--nay, billions--of dollars into running ads, or doing mailings.

What terrible thing is going to happen then?

Are all these "foreign interests" going to line up behind the exact same causes or candidates? Really? And no one is going to notice? And call attention to it?

If they line up behind all manner of causes and candidates--and on both sides, because these mysterious foreign interests are going to have diverse self-interest--then it's far from clear that they are going to have that much effect on the outcome of 435 House races, 33-34 Senate races, etc.

Also, the assumption is that merely spending a lot of money gains political victory, or at least, that people will buy your ideas because you had a lot of money to promote them. As demonstrated by the experiences of Ross Perot and Steve Forbes.

In any case, we actually do have a variety of laws that present a barrier to this sort of thing.

Also if the paranoid fantasies of some were actually playing out: Saudi princes or Chinese communist oligarchs cleverly spending hundreds of millions to subvert our republic, surely our government as other--and if there really is such subversion underway--far better, ways to deal with this than a disclosure law?

Meanwhile, where is the ACLU when you need them? I'm not being accusatory--I would like to know where they stand on this. I hope they are opposing the President and his allies on this.

This is a First Amendment issue: freedom of association and freedom of speech--recall the attempts of the state of Alabama to chill the activities of the NAACP, in the '50s, precisely through "mere disclosure--what's the harm" approach. The U.S. Supreme Court smacked that down. The logic of President Obama's position is that the Court was wrong in that case; or else, that government under his direction can be trusted with this regulatory power, but not those folks back in the '50s, because...?

So, Alex...what are you going to do? By all measures it looks like the GOP is going to get the House. The jury is still out on the Senate, but let's just, for the sake of argument, say they get the Senate too. Setting aside the fact that not have 60 votes is problematic for an agenda anyway, how are you going to act, personally, under a GOP-run Congress?

When President Obama won the whole shootin' match, my own personal take was, "well, I didn't vote for him and I don't think he's going to represent necessarily what I believe, but let's see what he can do". That was exactly my position at the start of his term. This is position I felt all good citizens would take.

So. Assuming a firm padding on the ass upcoming on the part of the DNC, how are you going respond personally? Attack or wait and see?

What could go wrong with 100s of millions of dollars from foreign entities to influence our elections anyway?

We could get the most radical, under-qualified President of the last 3/4 century?

Is that your point? Or, had you forgotten all the foreign donations that the Obama campaign got after turning off credit card validation? I seem to remember a pair of Palestinian brothers making hundreds of small donations - well over the legal limit - if they had been legally allowed to contribute, which, of course, they weren't.

And that was the tip of the iceberg. Many worried back then about people circumventing the campaign contribution laws this way, but I think most of the worry was about those who could contribute, but just contributed too much. It was only later that the foreign contributions became evident.

Oh, and then there was Clinton and Gore. I am sure that most here remember the Buddhist temple and allowing missile guidance technology be given to the ChiComs in trade for Chinese contributions.

Sorry, the Obama led Democrats lost all credibility on the issue when they disabled the verification on all those bank card donations from folks named 12345 and Mickey Mouse. Of course, they did teach the rest of us how to move money in an underground economy.

The Empire Strikes Back?!? Wrong movie franchise. I've always been surprised that no one has realized how very much more Harry Potter applies. Or do you think that calling Obama "The Dark Lord" would be too terribly racist? Just think how very closely the Delores Umbridge character models Michelle Obama and Kathleen Sebelius.

FLS, you said, If I know the source I know to what degree I'm being bullshitted. True. I went nuts for the longest time trying to figure out the slant of Brit papers in order to put the reporting in perspective. I eventually realized, however, that it isn't so very hard figuring out what's BS, even what is wishful thinking. I have also observed how my most progressive friends and my most conservative friends have no discernment when dealing with their favored media sources. Are you saying you only believe your pre-approved sources?

So, Alex...what are you going to do? By all measures it looks like the GOP is going to get the House.

Where they will be a bunch of gutless wonders, not touching any of the 3(4?)-rails of American politics AS USUAL. They'll cut some "waste, fraud and abuse" around the margins, cut taxes for the middle class and declare victory. Meanwhile $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see. Look I don't really blame the GOP for not touching the BIG entitlement + military, as that's political suicide. I blame the American people for being such parasites on society.

"By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Warvan, my administration shall be avenged!"

Bwahahah I love that movie.

Obama's speech writers are all children. They think like adolescents and have the cultural references of adolescents. No wonder Obama's administration is flailing around without any success. Stupid teenagers.....get off my country.

Christy and Bruce have said pretty much everything that needs to b said about the Obama hypocrisy.

What is it about liberals that makes them feel that Americans are too stupid to sift through all of the ads and issues; that Americans will just follow the flashiest ads?

fls said:If I know the source I know to what degree I'm being bullshitted.

THAT is exactly Ann's point. Thank you for illustrating. To a political liberal, being able to label and demonize is the shorthand that keeps things simple, not taxing the brain with things like actual reality and issues and stuff.

I see multiple people beat me to it. God, these have got to be the dumbest smart guys, ever. Of all the wedge issues to try and exploit, and realistically Republicans hand you wedge issues by the bushel basket, you pick the one issue where your guy has massive exposure? Dems in general, and Obama in particular, has zero high ground here.

The usual Lefty suspects are not-so-strangely quiet when the subject of foreign donors turns to the guys who pioneering the art and science of it all: Al "No Controlling Legal Authority" Gore, Bill "They just wanted a couple missiles" Clinton, and Barack "asdf; jklm from the Gaza Strip is my biggest supporter" Obama.

You would think they would have had enough sense to stay FAAAR away from this subject in the first place given the redwood-sized log in their own eyes, but I guess there's just no getting rid of stupid.

Perhaps we can look forward to Ritmo issuing a diatribe on how selling missile technology to the ChiComs and raking in millions of overseas donations through out and out credit card fraud is BETTER than simply flinging unsubstantiated allegations about the other guy trying to play on your home field.

If you're going to accuse someone of comitting a crime, then you better have the goods to back it up. Needless to say, none of the Leftists here have any proof: just flop sweat and the stink of desperation.

The conversation always turns to campaign financing when the election is lost. It's just a last second hail Mary thrown out of desperation. It's even worse for Democrats when you consider that Obama is the presidential equivalent of Rex Grossman.

Sounds a lot like the allegations of foreign money going to U.S. campaigns through the Chamber of Commerce. The charge was apparently created without any factual basis by the White House, and the MSM repeated it uncritically until they all realized that the Democrats likely have received a lot more foreign contributions than the Republicans this cycle.

House and Senate Democrats have received approximately $1.02 million this cycle from such PACs, according to an analysis compiled for The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics. House and Senate GOP leaders have taken almost $510,000 from PACs on the same list.

Place: The John Street Theater, New YorkDate: May 19, 1787Time: 8 of the clock, post meridian

"Hear ye, hear ye, ladies and gentlemen. I know well that ye have come to see Squire Tyler's entertainment, May-Day in Town, or New York in an Uproar. But first, if you will, please indulge me in a reading of a TRACT or DICTUM penned by a kind investor, who prefers to be known only as PUBLIUS.

To the People of the State of New York:

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.

"Democratic leaders in the House and Senate alleging GOP groups have funneled foreign money into campaign ads have seen their party raise more than $1 million from political action committees affiliated with foreign companies."

Its got more teeth than your "gotcha", Libtard:

"Democrats have acknowledged they have no evidence the groups are taking money from abroad and using it to fund political attack ads ahead of the midterm elections, but they argue that in the absence of tougher campaign disclosure rules, it's entirely possible.

I thought that, with free speech issues, we don't like government to get into content? Free speech is free speech, whether the content is innocuous, pleasing, grating or deeply offensive?

Who cares that the ads are, as you say, "fact free"? The American people need to be protected from evaluating that? Is it only a select few who are capable of figuring that out?

Suppose a modern-day "Publius" runs ads all about how terrible "Cap and Trade is"--and the arguments made are every bit as specious and smarmy as you might fear. Not knowing who this Publius is prevents folks from dissecting the specious arguments how?

As for now, specifying what they would cut would only give the Demos Alinsky ammo.

What a copout. Do Republicans have any principles other then getting elected, doing a few RINO-ish things and then getting ousted in favor of another super left-wing Marxist government? Then just rinse/repeat the cycle, while entitlement programs balloon to the point where the US Currency means nothing anymore by 2025.

A Democrat operative came to my door yesterday, and ask if I would be voting Democrat. I admitted that I was a lifelong Democrat but would not be voting for any Dem candidates, because I disagree with nearly everything they stand for and have done for 20 years.

She was visibly disappointed, and I felt bad, like I should give her a dollar or something. My anger is turning into pity, but I can live with that. Justice does not always work out for everybody.

But TV speakers don't have to disclose anything if they are invited on to offer their opinion. If Tom Friedman is invited on MSNBC to talk about infrastructure spending, do we know where he gets all of his money?

Good point. Glenn Beck should precede his show with this announcement: "The following program has been made possible in part through the generosity of Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal."

The Democrats tried to pass a bill that explicitly exempted certain groups from having to disclose their donors.

At the behest of the NRA and the AARP -- talk about your strange bedfellows.

For the 100th time. The Chamber, unlike any other group you and other shills like you put up, will not disclose who is contributing. How does it feel having the Kingdom of Bahrain pay for your attack ads, Mr Muslims Under My Bed?

How does it feel having the Kingdom of Bahrain pay for your attack ads, Mr Muslims Under My Bed?

"Democrats have acknowledged they have no evidence the groups are taking money from abroad and using it to fund political attack ads ahead of the midterm elections, but they argue that in the absence of tougher campaign disclosure rules, it's entirely possible."

"What a copout. Do Republicans have any principles other then getting elected,..."

It doesn't matter what your principles are if you don't get elected. This is the double edged sword of the conservative candidate. To be completely open means telling people you will cut spending that they may like, and nearly everyone likes some spending. Your opponent will always have the advantage by playing Santa Claus to your pragmatism. I don't want them to lie, but I'm OK if they simply promise to cut without being specific, because frankly, everything needs cut, and it won't happen if they get specific, because they won't win. It's just an unfortunate fact like those in sausage making.

"Anyway, is the a question of some kind? I clearly and succinctly destroyed whatever argument you're trying to make here."

So here we have the problem - you can't fucking read.

The question marks and interrogative structure should be what clues you into the fact that I asked you a question. More than one actually, but let's get into counting yet. Baby steps.

You clearly and distinctly haven't destroyed anything other than your own non-argument. You see, you brought up absolutely unsubstantiated allegations against the COC. You've been called on it, shown substantiated allegations of Dems doing what they're accusing Repubs of, then declaring victory.

Now see, I know the previous paragraph is a bit much for someone who can't even tell what a question is, but we've got to figure out what you can actually understand before we can effectively educate you.

President Obama is the underdog, the little guy fighting for the little guys and gals everywhere against the terrible Big Guys. Didn't you read the narrative?

Honestly, I think that populist "Us against the Empire" approach has been his only campaigning style, ever. Now that he IS the fucking empire (as someone once wisely observed), he knows no other camaigning style to fall back on.

Doesn't your average president have people who's sole function is to gauge how things will sink or float politically? Did he just off-the-cuff the Star Wars thing or did he bounce it off his political advisor(s) first? If the latter, they need to be sent packing. They're doing him a huge disservice by allowing a turn of phrase so easily convoluted to the opposite of what he intended.

You see, you brought up absolutely unsubstantiated allegations against the COC. You've been called on it, shown substantiated allegations of Dems doing what they're accusing Repubs of, then declaring victory.

1. Nothing I brought up is unsubstantiated. They will not disclose their funding sources. The little we do know is documented. The Chamber has never denied any of it.

2. Your counter example that wingers are pasting everywhere, the "Dems are doing it toooo!!" doesn't stack up. A.) The PACS are funded entirely by contributions from U.S. employees. [this means they are not foreign] B.)They are 100% publicly disclosed. C.)The PACs are subject to the same rules and laws as every other PAC.

Detached Garage Mahal wrote: The GOP is now rigorously defending the right of Mulsim nations or groups to anonymously pour millions into our elections. And calling it 'free speech'.

Give us a dark reason for doing that DGM. Every crime needs a motive. Could it be because our POTUS has demonized carbon-based fuels, their bread and butter? Or is it because the Republicans really do heart Islam because they too are into repression?

They weren't taught the classics and certainly not taught Shakespeare, w/ his complex characters.

I think everybody goes through at least one of the tragedies. I had to study four in high school alone…and that's not counting sonnets.

Of course, one of the reasons Shakespeare is not taught is because feminazi English teachers find him sexist.

See above. People still study Shakespeare.

That's of course, not to say that it's not ridiculous for Obama to be all "people who disagree with me are the empire". That's just so typical. Let's talk about how Luke was clinging to his light sabre and the force instead...

The condescension and outright elitism in the mindset of "they are against us because we didn't explain it well enough", as most recently lamented by one VP Biden, is enough to choke on. History will judge this worldview harsly.

As for now, specifying what they would cut would only give the Demos Alinsky ammo.

What a copout. Do Republicans have any principles other then getting elected, doing a few RINO-ish things and then getting ousted in favor of another super left-wing Marxist government? Then just rinse/repeat the cycle, while entitlement programs balloon to the point where the US Currency means nothing anymore by 2025.

Anybody who has watched politics knows how the Demos work. You don't give them ammo during an election campaign.

HDHouse said...

...

obama may sound "desperate" but that is in an attempt to save the system from being over run by pure wealth. I'm rather surprised that you don't get it.

HD doesn't get how the banks and the mortgage companies have been bailed out by the leading recipient of their contributions while he was in the Senate -

HD? Garage? Anyone got the stones to take that on, or are you just content to keep regurgitating Axelrod's talking points?

For a couple of guys who constantly lament how no one here is smart enough to deal with their lofty intellects, they sure seem to go deaf, dumb and blind as soon as the mention of Obama's corrupt activities come up.

And we're supposed to be concerned that the Democrats have imagined scary brown people behind every opposition ad? Sorry. If you ain't got the proof, then you ain't got a case. Dismissed.

And since when did demonizing foreigners become a Democratic Party value? Bunch of backward racists fearmongering about brown people...

obama may sound "desperate" but that is in an attempt to save the system from being over run by pure wealth. I'm rather surprised that you don't get it.

Riiight.

Get back to me when the FLOTUS isn't indulging in $375,000 vacations at foreign 5 star resorts.

Or when Al Gore donates the billion dollars he flim-flammed to the poor, John Fing Kerry stops buying half-million dollar yachts with his wife's dough, John Corzine gives the $500 mil he made as Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs to the taxpayers, and Nancy Pelosi's fancy-pants vineyards, restaurants and resort spa pay health insurance for the NON-UNION, minimum wage Hispanics who pick her grapes, clean the rooms and peel the veggies and perhaps I can stop laughing.

And let's not forget all the big liberal foundations like the Economic Policy Institute, the Kaiser Foundation, the PEW, McArthur, and the Tides that are regularly spinning polls and surveys and putting agenda-driven "non-patisan" studies.

You're correct: the Chamber, and lots of other groups, do not have to disclose their donors.It's a First Amendment issue.Free speech and freedom of association.NAACP v. Alabama, 1958; anyone recall how the U.S. Supreme Court vote came out in that case?It was 9-to-zero. Unanimous."

So over 50 years ago, the August Lawyer-Priests now touted as the final word over everything said something.Sorry, BFD!!

That was from a time before special interest groups and foreign lobbies were truly organized, armed with instantaneous global communications. The borderless flow of money. Before NGOs whose main purpose was advancing a political agenda or interests of one foreign nation became more powerful in DC than the People's vote.

9 lawyers in black robes!! 52 years ago! Before Internet, satellite comms, foreign ownership of media outlets here! Before the amoral international corporations or cabals of Wall Street Bankers decided what is bad for America is sometimes immensely profitable to them and they, not the People, have the ex-Presidents, ex Secretary of States, former Speakers and House committee heads, 47 active Senators, on their payroll serving their American AND FOREIGN investors.

SCOTUS verily sayeth so 52 years ago??BFD.

The idiot Obama is barking up the wrong tree as the foreign sections of US chamber of commerce are in fact US companies in general advocating for US commercial interests in foreign countries. But the China, Israel, India lobbies? Not serving America. The multinational using Carlos Slim Money or Mittal Group money to influence the powerbrokers in DC to destroy US jobs or whole industries and send them to Slim's Mexico or Mittal Enterprises in India - that sort of "privacy" destroys America bit by bit.

The international financial community on Wall Street where rich Japanese, American, Chinese, Saudi, Euro dollars all comingle - then in privacy are funnelled to politicians to get them a trillion dollar payout that US taxpayers will finally have to cough up? That privacy is not good for America.

Nor is foreign money funneled into "human rights groups" like HRW and the ACLU, or Muslim prosetylization NGOs - that is intended to sabotage US culture and institutions in complete privacy.

Time to revisit NAACP v. Alabama, 1958, and flag all non-citizens throwing money at powerful people in the government and funding "sabotage America" lawsuits.

BJM: Isn't it obvious that The Acme Corporation is responsible for producing the array of complex and ludicrous rhetorical devices that unexpectedly blow up in Obama's face?

Too funny!

Except I think these "own goals" are deliberate. DHOTUS can blame all his failures on a split congress - he needs the GOP to take both houses, so he can ride them as scapegoats to defend his legacy from all his past and future failures.

* DHOTUSDiversity Hire of the United States- selected because of his skin color for a job he's not qualified for- can't handle the workload, grows frustrated and bitter- blames all his failures on someone else, usually The System or Whitey-files an EEO complaint against America

I remember during the Democratic primary, some obscure group had an ad saying that Obama was strong on defense, and our enemies wanted Howard Dean to be elected because he was weak on defense. Dean and his campaign had a shit-fit, and wanted to know who did the ad. The Obama people didn't disclose who it was, and said it was all legal. Anybody remember that? Too funny.

"Robert Gibbs has a history of not only dissing progressives but of using inflammatory/Karl Rove-type tactics against progressives, liberals and the left.In 2003, according to the New York Times, Gibbs was spokesperson for a group that smeared candidate Howard Dean using Osama Bin Laden pictures and languages like Dean is too weak and "dangerous" while saying that "Dean cannot compete with Bush on foreign policy". In fact, the title of the article in the New York Times pretty much tells everything: "THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: ADVERTISING; New Democratic Group Finances a Republican-like Attack on Dean".

You know Garage, 3 or more years ago and I could have engaged with these arguments and had sympathy for them. Maybe that's because I'm a moderate, RINO if you will, and have some discomfort with all of the money that goes into campaigns. I voted for McCain, you know the guy conservatives hate because of McCain-Feingold.

But when our fearless President in '08 eschewed public funding because he was and continued to be ahead in the money game that really did it for me. It wasn't about good and pure money; it was about how much. And in this case he won

And since then...

Well I didn't hear a lot of hue and cry when Big Pharma underwrote ads for Obamacare as it worked its way through Congress. I'm waiting for the hue and cry from Dems and liberals regarding the baseless accusations of foreign money used by the CoC. So the Dems have really killed my sympathy for campaign finance reform.

And just to pile on a little. What did the President expect when he repeatedly and glibly sought out and publically berated the corporate "bad guy" when any issue came up. I work in healthcare and I was glad when fully one year before its passage representatives of the major health insurance companies met with the President and said they were willing to work with him on health care reform. At that time they stated their commitment to ending pre-existing conditions and working with the Administration in making health care more affordable. And since then...

Its been a continued demonizing of the health insurance companies even when they've fulfilled portions of the law BEFORE the deadline arrives.

So no, I can't engage in this old argument because at this point it feels like BS, utter BS from the Dems.

GM:What could go wrong with 100s of millions of dollars from foreign entities to influence our elections anyway?

GM Restated: Americans are fucking retarded. These evil businesses will run ads and stupid Americans will vote that way because they're brainwashed morons. We need to control what these fools hear on the airwaves because otherwise someone else will control them.

Remember that votes count, not dollars. Ultimately, people are going to make up their own minds, no matter what ads are run. Do you think the Democrats would do well if they had unlimited money this election? Neither do I.

Says the guy who doesn't know what a bond is or how to cite a source that backs up his claims.

Gmay is back!

You never got back to me after I pointed out your ludicrous claim there wasn't any money in the SS Trust Fund. Remember? You said there wasn't any money in there. And speaking of bonds, lo and behold there are over 3 Trillion dollars of.......BONDS!

garage lied: "You never got back to me after I pointed out your ludicrous claim there wasn't any money in the SS Trust Fund. Remember? You said there wasn't any money in there. And speaking of bonds, lo and behold there are over 3 Trillion dollars of.......BONDS!"

Always been here Tiger, and yeah, I did get back to you. You ducked the thread in the middle of that lesson. Glad to see you back to make up your lost class.

You're right, I said there wasn't any money in there. And I'm right. The SS trust fund doesn't have 3 trillion dollars in it does it garbage? It has 3 trillion in assets. Those assets are bonds.

Remember when you said it wasn't like there were IOUs in the trust fund? That was right about the time I asked you if you knew what a bond was. Remember that one big fella? You never answered either because you're that clueless, or you know that you're wrong.

I believe the conversation started because you said the government doesn't print money to pay for things. Since you don't know what a bond is, what backs them, who issues them and who prints the money or really, the first fucking clue about basic government financing/debt structure, I'm wondering if this is where you duck the thread again.

You never got back to me after I pointed out your ludicrous claim there wasn't any money in the SS Trust Fund. Remember? You said there wasn't any money in there. And speaking of bonds, lo and behold there are over 3 Trillion dollars of.......BONDS!

Shouldn't feed this, but...

Since when are bonds "money"? My understanding is that these are special IOUs of the federal government that are non-negotiable, and, indeed, only usable in this situation.

The non-negotiable factor is important here. They aren't a part of the monetary system, don't move around between different intermediaries, etc. They cannot constitute the type of borrowing that can be used by the Fed to adjust the nation's money supply.

So, pretty much all you have backing the SS system are IOUs of the federal government.